Re: Needed: An easier way to build a subset of kernel packages
David Woodhouse wrote: On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 21:20 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: Hrm, not sure why that doesn't pass the option through, but I hadn't even thought to look at the Makefile to see how these flags would work at that level. Out of curiosity, does the following work?: $ make RPM_DEFINES=--define 'with_kdump 0' I suppose I ought to poke at that some myself... Adding to my todo list. I used the trick I learned from the end of the existing Makefile... [EMAIL PROTECTED] devel]# tail -4 Makefile compile compile-short: DIST_DEFINES += --target $(shell uname -m) ppc64: DIST_DEFINES += --without kdump ppc: DIST_DEFINES += --without smp Now I just have to remember never to commit the Makefile :) Ooh, I like it... Along those lines, what if we had Makefile include a Makefile.local if it existed, which was .cvsignore'd? Then you could tweak your local default build prefs to your hearts content without having to worry about accidentally committing them... /me still needs to actually *read* the Makefile at this point... ;) -- Jarod Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: Needed: An easier way to build a subset of kernel packages
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: I was thinking about adding something like this to the .spec file at the beginning: %define allowup 1 %define allowsmp 1 %define allowpae 1 %define allowxen 1 %define allowdoc 1 %define allowdump 1 %define allowheaders 1 %define allowdebug 1 Then, after all the automatic enable/disable of various options is done, turn off everything that's not allowed. This would make it much easier to change what gets built. The amount of %define's we've grown recently does seem to be getting out of hand. I'm not sure it's a good/bad thing, but it does make the spec a little harder to read. Not sure about your proposal tbh. I'll think about it more when I'm back from vacation :) Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: Needed: An easier way to build a subset of kernel packages
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:06:58PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: Dave Jones wrote: On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: I was thinking about adding something like this to the .spec file at the beginning: %define allowup 1 %define allowsmp 1 %define allowpae 1 %define allowxen 1 %define allowdoc 1 %define allowdump 1 %define allowheaders 1 %define allowdebug 1 Then, after all the automatic enable/disable of various options is done, turn off everything that's not allowed. This would make it much easier to change what gets built. The amount of %define's we've grown recently does seem to be getting out of hand. I'm not sure it's a good/bad thing, but it does make the spec a little harder to read. Not sure about your proposal tbh. I'll think about it more when I'm back from vacation :) I like it, at least in theory. Invariably, I'll do a test build, and to speed the process, I twiddle bits at the top of the spec to disable certain builds. In the i686 case, I almost always forget to hunt down lower to turn off pae. I probably don't really notice, because my workflow for test builds is usually make prep cd kernel-2.6.20/linux-2.6.20.noarch cp configs/$whateverconfigIwant .config make oldconfig bzImage modules sudo make modules_install install But I've not objection to making it easier for people who don't follow my workflow and do things differently. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: Needed: An easier way to build a subset of kernel packages
Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:06:58PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
I was thinking about adding something like this to the .spec file
at the beginning:
%define allowup 1
%define allowsmp 1
%define allowpae 1
%define allowxen 1
%define allowdoc 1
%define allowdump 1
%define allowheaders 1
%define allowdebug 1
Then, after all the automatic enable/disable of various options is
done,
turn off everything that's not allowed.
This would make it much easier to change what gets built.
The amount of %define's we've grown recently does seem to be
getting out of hand. I'm not sure it's a good/bad thing, but it
does make the spec a little harder to read.
Not sure about your proposal tbh. I'll think about it more
when I'm back from vacation :)
I like it, at least in theory. Invariably, I'll do a test build, and to
speed the process, I twiddle bits at the top of the spec to disable
certain builds. In the i686 case, I almost always forget to hunt down
lower to turn off pae.
I probably don't really notice, because my workflow for test builds is usually
make prep
cd kernel-2.6.20/linux-2.6.20.noarch
cp configs/$whateverconfigIwant .config
make oldconfig bzImage modules
sudo make modules_install install
But I've not objection to making it easier for people who don't follow
my workflow and do things differently.
Rather than wasting Chuck's time implementing this, what say a
lower-level grunt like myself try to implement something along these
lines? :) I've got a few ideas on how to do it using either %bcond or
%with{,out}...
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: Needed: An easier way to build a subset of kernel packages
Jarod Wilson wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:06:58PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
I was thinking about adding something like this to the .spec file
at the beginning:
%define allowup 1
%define allowsmp 1
%define allowpae 1
%define allowxen 1
%define allowdoc 1
%define allowdump 1
%define allowheaders 1
%define allowdebug 1
Then, after all the automatic enable/disable of various options is
done,
turn off everything that's not allowed.
This would make it much easier to change what gets built.
The amount of %define's we've grown recently does seem to be
getting out of hand. I'm not sure it's a good/bad thing, but it
does make the spec a little harder to read.
Not sure about your proposal tbh. I'll think about it more
when I'm back from vacation :)
I like it, at least in theory. Invariably, I'll do a test build, and to
speed the process, I twiddle bits at the top of the spec to disable
certain builds. In the i686 case, I almost always forget to hunt down
lower to turn off pae.
But I've not objection to making it easier for people who don't follow
my workflow and do things differently.
Rather than wasting Chuck's time implementing this, what say a
lower-level grunt like myself try to implement something along these
lines? :) I've got a few ideas on how to do it using either %bcond or
%with{,out}...
You understand rpm better than I do, so go for it. I'd use Dave's method
but an RPM is so much more convenient...
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: Needed: An easier way to build a subset of kernel packages
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
Jarod Wilson wrote:
The minimalist approach that comes to mind is to make all the %define
build* bits all set to 1/enabled by default, and only flip them to
disabled where appropriate, so they'd be equivalent to your allow* idea,
in that if you disable them at the top of the spec, they'd stay disabled.
I like this; right now there are surprises there for the unwary who
think they can disable things that way.
I've implemented enabling/disabling certain builds at the very top of
the spec file, and anything you set to not build at the top will NOT be
turned back on later by an ifarch/ifnarch/etc -- all those have been
modified such that they only disable things compared with the defaults
set at the top.
Turns out the complexity of adding --with/--without support only
resulted in the on/off lines at the top of the spec being slightly
longer, so one can now additionally pass in, say, --without xen, on the
rpmbuild line to disable building a xen kernel. For example, here's the
results of a test build using the modified spec:
$ rpmbuild -bb --without xen --without kdump --without debug kernel-2.6.spec
[...]
Wrote: /data/buildroot/RPMS/x86_64/kernel-2.6.20-1.2937.fc6.x86_64.rpm
Wrote:
/data/buildroot/RPMS/x86_64/kernel-debuginfo-2.6.20-1.2937.fc6.x86_64.rpm
Wrote:
/data/buildroot/RPMS/x86_64/kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.20-1.2937.fc6.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /data/buildroot/RPMS/x86_64/kernel-devel-2.6.20-1.2937.fc6.x86_64.rpm
Wrote:
/data/buildroot/RPMS/x86_64/kernel-headers-2.6.20-1.2937.fc6.x86_64.rpm
Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /data/buildroot/tmp/rpm-tmp.44498
+ umask 022
+ cd /data/buildroot/BUILD
+ cd kernel-2.6.20
+ rm -rf /data/buildroot/tmp/kernel-2.6.20-1.2937.fc6-root
+ exit 0
Results are exactly as expected/desired. Similar results have been
observed on an i686 build.
Here's another thought... Would be simple enough to add one more flag,
along the lines of --without flavo{,u}rs that automagically flipped
off everything but the base kernel build (+debuginfo, devel and
headers). That's actually likely to be the thing folks would most
commonly want to do. Worth adding?
Still touching up a few things, but should have this completely
presentable before lunch tomorrow...
--
Jarod Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
